Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 18

Derivatives tracking stocks to enjoy lower tax rate

I was reading European Union financial transaction tax and was confused as to why the tax rate for derivatives is lower than that of stocks. Couldn't people just create derivatives that track the price of individual stocks and trade those instead at a much lower (90% lower!) tax rate?

For example, let's say a stock currently trades at €100.00. Why not create just an American call option on that stock, with strike price at €0.01, expiration date 2999. The value of that option is €99.99. The tax rate would be 0.01% on the derivative instead 0.1% on the stock itself.731Butai (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from doing that, and professionals who know how to do this are making heavy use of derivatives, especially swaps, to avoid the tax. But you can't use any derivative, you have to buy something that has sellers. For that option with that maturity date, which you describe, do you know any seller? --Lgriot (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

An American option can be exercised at any time before the maturity date.731Butai (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You could, but you won't own the stock, so you aren't a shareholder and don't get voting rights or dividends. This is fine if you're just speculating on the share price, but many entities, especially institutional investors, actually want to own stock (and often make large trades). Also, one reason some people advocate a transaction tax is to cut down on high-frequency trading, which is primarily a stock market issue. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual holder of the stock, the market maker, still owns the actual stock and thus gets both the voting rights and dividends, so nothing is "lost" in this sense. The owner of the derivatives enjoys the capital gains and the 90% discount on taxes, and the owner of the stock still enjoys the "normal" benefits of stock ownership, minus the capital gains part. 731Butai (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't really need and American option - there is already total return swap that is being used as a soft of "synthetic stock" to circumvent withholding taxes on dividends (among other uses). However, part of the stated reason for the FTT is to reduce the volatility (read: high-frequency traders) in the stock and bond markets. Different tax rates would force HFTs to move to the derivative market. On the other hand, a lot of stable long-term investors, such as investment and pension funds, would still buy shares, since a lot of them can not hold derivative instruments in their portfolios. Finally, no derivative will ever be a true substitute of the underlying asset, since it is issued by another institution (say, Goldman Sachs) and thus exposes the buyer to credit risk towards that institution (even if it is minimized through collateral).No longer a penguin (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WHAOE! Low_Exercise_Price_Option. Also, you can create any stock position with a combination of European calls and puts: these are called synthetic stocks. Here is an example: http://www.theoptionsguide.com/synthetic-long-stock.aspx. However, in the United States at least, there are complex tax rules that make it harder to mitigate taxes this way: for example, the "constructive sale" rule, explained here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/constructivesalerule.asp. OldTimeNESter (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Does any of the EU countries have this "constructive sale" rule? 731Butai (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I searched for variations on "euro zone derivative constructive sale" and didn't find anything related. The search results I did find excluded "euro zone", so I expect the term "constructive sale" is only applicable to the United States tax code. Your best bet would be to find an online forum on derivatives based in an EU nation and ask there. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably you mean WHAAOE? Contact Basemetal here 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Religious observance

I was sitting next to a woman on a bus one Sunday night a couple of weeks ago and happened to notice her crossing herself. I looked up to see why and saw we were passing the (Anglican) parish church. We continued on our way and as the church of the next parish came into view I watched to see what would happen and she did it again. I have never before seen any kind of religious observance on public transport (apart from itinerant preachers) and wonder if this is commonplace. 86.149.14.226 (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sign of the cross is a form of prayer. Each person prays in their own way. Perhaps she couldn't make it to church that day, or maybe she needed God's blessing to help her through a trying time. The Transhumanist 11:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As this book says, "There are Catholics who cross themselves when passing a church, before eating, when they succeed at some act, or when they feel in danger" (my emphasis). I assume that some High Church Anglicans do so as well. Judging by forum posts on the Web, the usual justification that Catholics, at least, give for the practice is that it's an act of veneration for the reserved host usually present in the churches. Deor (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Catholics are taught to cross themselves when passing the front of the altar (properly, the tabernacle) which holds the Host. This extends to any church in general in most Catholic's minds. In my neighbourhood in upper Manhattan Mexicans and Dominicans would routinely cross themselves when passing the front of an Episcopal church. At my parish church we never crossed from one side of the church to the other without genuflecting and crossing ourselves at the midline. μηδείς (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Very commonplace in Poland, especially among older people and in the countryside. Crossing oneself when starting a journey is common too. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

how can singaporean studying or holidaying in western country, protect from racist hate crime?

terima kasih untuk jawapan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.31.118 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not technically a jawapan, but in most countries, you have a far bigger risk of being harmed in an ordinary crime, with little racist or hate motivation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators of hate crimes may react aggressively or violently to perceived offenses by a stranger, particularly one of a different ethnic origin. You'd be wise to become familiar in advance with local practices: payment (e.g. at time of placing order vs. receiving goods), eating/drinking, use of lavatories, public transportation, etc. Eye contact, maintaining distance, touching, etc. and gestures in general may be misunderstood (e.g. as threatening vs. displaying sincerity), also in regard to the opposite sex, children, the elderly, and uniformed officials. Search "advice foreign visitors xxx" where xxx is the country in question. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

All excellent advice but, in all fairness, there are things that can be beyond your control. If you're Black or Asian and you happen to encounter a bunch of skinheads there's little you can do to "avoid giving offense". The only advice there is "don't go to a part of town where you're likely to run into skinheads" or "run as fast as you can". In general hate crimes are not always the result of locally inappropriate behavior. They can be pure hate crimes no matter how much one tries to not give offense. There are strategies for dealing with such situations too. But I would pick up on what Nil Einne said: your strategy should be to avoid crime in general (unless of course you wouldn't mind being victim of a crime so long as it is not a hate crime). If you have worked out such a strategy (which is of course never full proof) then avoiding hate crime will come as a bonus. Contact the local Singaporean embassy where you're going. Without specific details regarding your personal situation it is impossible to be more specific. Contact Basemetal here 14:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the country! For example, I don't think that Singaporeans have any real risk in the United States. Many American racists actually believe ideas of race and intelligence that place them inferior to east Asians. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, I have never heard of such a thing in the US. One might want to avoid certain neighborhoods, but simply because they are bad neighborhoods, not because there's and hostility towards Singaporeans. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember that Singaporean isn't a "race" under many common definitions and Singapore is somewhat multiracial and multireligious. Malay Singaporeans may be considered East Asian "race" under some definitions, but Tamil people (and most others of Indian descent) definitely aren't normally. I mention Tamil people not just because they represent a majority of Indian Singaporean but because many are dark enough that despite looking fairly different from most people of sub-Saharan African descent, many racists probably don't care and would consider them black (or at least "similar"). Also I'm fairly sure a songkok wearing Singaporean Muslim Malay with a beard who visits a mosque is at risk of a hate crime, just as a Arab Muslim doing similar. Not particularly high risk perhaps, but the point is being Singaporean doesn't make you somehow immune to such risks. Most people who perpetrate such crimes definitely don't check passports and aren't known for being great distinguishers of who they are attacking. And in any case, most perpetrators are going to consider them equally deserving. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The OP ain't saying much so we don't even know if they're planning to visit the US, but since the US were mentioned I'll note that there were in the past some tensions between East Asians and African-Americans and there might still be. See for example this. As already stated, there is no such a thing as an Singaporean ethnic group. From WP article Demographics of Singapore#Ethnic groups, resident Singaporeans (=nationals+non-nationals) were in 2014 comprised of 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malay, 9.1% Indian and 3.3% Others. Based purely on physical appearance a Singaporean of Chinese or Malay origin will probably look "East Asian" to your average American. Contact Basemetal here 17:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

One practical bit of advice for any traveler is to ensure that the rental car does not have bumper sticker on it that identifies it as a rental car. Criminals have been known to hang out near airports, and to follow and then rob anyone leaving in a rental car. The assumption is that visitors will have money and valuables (cameras, laptops, etc.) with them and be less likely to report a crime or stick around to testify at a trial, if the perp(s) are caught. When you reserve the rental car, make sure it won't have a sticker on it, and if it does, rent from somebody else.

Also, you need to avoid bad parts of town. Unfortunately, towns are reluctant to admit that they have bad parts you should avoid, so you have to ask a local resident about it, or possibly obtain a map of crimes that have occurred in the area, so you can avoid clusters. There are also areas that are safe during the day but dangerous at night, like many parks in the US. StuRat (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to Basemetal's post above, yes, Korean bodega owners were attacked during the Rodney King riots, as were white truck drivers. This does not in any way indicate any significant anti-East Asian sentiment, nor does the fact that half a dozen Sikhs have been assaulted since 9/11 for wearing turbans indicate any general animus against Tamils or ethnic Indians in general. There are plenty of racists, but the notion that a Singaporean should wear a hijab to avoid being raped while visiting the US is an absurd one. I have no idea how this plays out in the UK. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I would think that hijab wearers are more likely targets for hate crimes, especially in Europe. Sikhs are also a significant minority group in Singapore. The assaults on Sikhs in the USA are an example why Singaporeans are worried about hate crimes when they travel to the West. --G. Sivalingam (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Talking of the UK I was reminded of this. Even leaving aside racism there is also the fact that some ethnic groups may be considered by others to be "easy prey" because they supposedly don't "hit back". For example I was told American Jews sometimes have the feeling that African-American violence may be directed at them simply because African-Americans believe that "Jews won't hit back". Whether true or not, the mere perception may put some groups at risk. One may argue that, strictly speaking it is not the same as racism, but it seems to work about the same in the end. I believe the people who stole from that Asian boy in that video got identified, charged and sentenced. Contact Basemetal here 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for all countries, but as a U.S. citizen I can tell you many Americans have no idea where Singapore is (they probably have at least heard of it). In the U.S. you're pretty unlikely to be a victim of a hate crime. You're way more likely to be a victim of a plain old petty crime like pickpocketing or someone swiping your stuff if left unattended, especially in the places that get a lot of tourists. That's what you should keep in mind if you visit. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/59052/how-can-singaporean-studying-in-western-country-protect-from-racist-hate-crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.161.95 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're thinking of studying in a Western country, there are differences in risk between different cities. In a city where there are a lot of students there will also be a lot of students from an East Asian or South East Asian background. If you come to a very large city like London or New York, you need to think about the part of the city where you will live. I agree with what has been said above that non-hate crime is your major concern, but students are a bit more vulnerable than non-students, and international students slightly more vulnerable still. Identifiable tourists are also vulnerable. But crime rates are not particularly high in the UK, Canada or Australia, and in the US there are many cities where they aren't high either. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comedians of the past who turned into prominent politicians

I've read articles/blogs/essays collectively commenting on comedians successfully switching to politics as a relatively recent phenomenon (Jón Gnarr, Al Franken, Beppe Grillo, Jimmy Morales). Out of curiosity: Can you give me some precursors, 20th century, say? (Apart from Alfred Rasser of whom nobody here has heard, and I don't consider Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ronald Reagan comedians. Not the kind I'm looking for anyway). ---Sluzzelin talk 17:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Does Fred Grandy qualify? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Or Sonny Bono? --Jayron32 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Were either of them "comedians"? Playing roles in TV sitcoms that come with lots of (canned) laughs doesn't qualify one as a comedian, does it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sonny Bono did sketch comedy (i.e. the same comedy done by Al Franken) on the The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour and several other shows. He also was a songwriter and singer. --Jayron32 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Morales is the president elect of Guatemala. Pat Paulsen and Dick Gregory ran for president of the US. Though the last two are not really successful. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The current field of Republican candidates are all comedians, I'm pretty sure. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just hope that the joke isn't on us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The multi-talented Kinky Friedman is politically active, and has run for more than one office, but not thus far successfully. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Edwards was a candidate for Parliament but, again, doesn't quite fulfil the successful remit. Keresaspa (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(Original poster here) Thank you, all, for your suggestions! Please keep 'em coming! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (as Stephen Colbert (character)) ran briefly for president (see Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008), but it was in jest - a serious joke, as it were. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese politician Hideo Higashikokubaru - a prefecture governor, and later a member of the House of Representatives, rose to fame as a television comedian. Neutrality^talk 05:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Actor-politicians might bear fruit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Coluche. Then there are comedians who opine about politics, and support causes, without turning into professional politicians. Jim Davidson. Kenny Everett famously supported Margaret Thatcher although it's not clear that he was being serious. Mark Thomas, Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Josie Long and Frankie Boyle are all clearly identified with the political Left, while Robert Webb takes a particular line on the UK Labour Party leadership. The whole field of satire. Tom Lehrer. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, everyone! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

First names of Asian-Americans

Based purely on my own experience, it seems that most Americans of East Asian ancestry have first names that are European or Biblical in origin, while most Americans of South Asian ancestry have first names that are South Asian in origin. First off, can anyone point me to hard data that either supports or contradicts my assumption? And if it's true, is there any real research into why? I can toss out tons of convincing-sounding ideas, but I would really love to get something solid and verified. (Wikipedia does have Naming in the United States, but it pretty much just discusses nationwide and Black-American trends.) Thanks! --M@rēino 18:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

See Chinese_name#Western_name and this article and this article. --Jayron32 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The Slate article was especially useful. So it seems like it's mainland-Chinese culture that is behind the phenomenon, more than anything peculiarly American. --M@rēino 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Same sex marriage & abortion

Ireland has legalised same sex marriage and has a [near] total prohibition on artificially aborting a pregnancy. Is this a unique situation?--Stanstaple (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

On a national level (there are subdivisional examples within US territory, for example, where abortion is illegal while same sex marriage is legal), the closest I could find quickly is Chile where "abortion is illegal without exception" while same sex unions are legal and marriages might well become legal soon. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "within US territory"? Roe v. Wade (albeit there have been some modifications around the edges in the intervening years) applies in all US territory that I'm aware of. I suppose I'm not completely sure about, say, American Samoa, or what would happen if a Native American tribe possessed of limited tribal sovereignty were to ban abortion, but Roe v. Wade was based on the same quality of personal rights as Obergefell v. Hodges, so I would be fairly startled if there were a US jurisdiction where the latter applied but not the former. --Trovatore (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Sluzzelin was getting at, but maybe the comment was intended to be about access rather than legality. Not much use in having a legal right if it's incredibly difficult and expensive to access it, see e.g. map here [1]. Several areas of that map may change soon, e.g. there may be less than 10 abortion clinics in TX after the supreme court hears this case [2]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Our Abortion in the United States and Abortion in the Northern Mariana Islands suggest it's illegal in the Northern Mariana Islands, and the applicability of Roe v. Wade to there is untested. On the other hand Northern Mariana Islands and Jack Abramoff CNMI scandal mention forced abortions. According to Same-sex marriage in the Northern Mariana Islands and LGBT rights in the Northern Mariana Islands, same sex marriages are performed there as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rulings (although I'm surprised the same hasn't happed with Roe V. Wade). In truth, I'm not sure how many really doubt Roe v. Wade, it may simply be finding someone to test it is difficult (you'd need a person willing to be publicly linked to a case plus a doctor in the territory willing to be publicly linked to performing an abortion). Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nil Einne, and apologies to the others, for not having specified what I meant. That part of my research (from comparing colored maps and skimming some of the articles linked by Nil) was a bit too perfunctory. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that this represents changing attitudes. Originally, prohibition of abortion and homosexuality were both viewed as the agenda of churches with a sexual fixation, and gay groups (ACT-UP, Queer Nation, etc.) would oppose the entire agenda with a sense of solidarity. But.... abortion isn't really all that much of a gay issue, for obvious reasons. Meanwhile, there are more Christians in churches with teachings that accept gays, which goes all the way back to scriptural/theological issues, while abortion is seen as more of a "pro-life" agenda that can actually include anti-death penalty activism (whereas in the past 'conservatives' would be seen as pro-death penalty and anti-abortion), opposition to euthanasia, and charitable attitudes toward the poor, refugees, etc. So I feel like some significant developments within religious organizations, which is echoed in their past opponents, is leading to the separation of the two issues. But I'm just putting this out as a thought ... I'm not really sure how you would search for (or confirm) a reliable source for such a general idea. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To concur with and summarize what you're saying: the two topics are apples and oranges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Abortion in Argentina is a mess but it sounds like the law there is fairly unclear and legal non-clandenstine abortions are really restricted there, particularly for the poor. That article actually suggests it's only allowed in the event of rape (which is distinct from Ireland) and where the life of the mother is at risk (which is a bit distinct since it's not substanial and real risk), but [3] and [4] mention health. (Health clauses can have very differeing intepretations so while they are a distinction, they don't necessarily have imply that much difference.) Argentina does appearently also have similar protections from conception. Same-sex marriage mentions that Argentina does have same-sex marriage. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)